Capitalism - Unknown Issues?

Questions about Objectivism
1

I’ve been reading up on Capitalism by Ayn Rand and some questions came up while I was reading this.

In the past I considered myself somewhat of a social-democrat, but recently my views have changed.

As is stated by capitalists a men’s only right is the right to live and therefor the right to pursue happiness without going at the expense of others.

This is also what the goverments function must be. To protect the individual rights of men and to pursue those who initiate force against other men.

Also it is said that men will be productive because they will be forced to compete with other laborers, because an employer is fully free to employ whomever is chosen.

This raised a question: Let us say we have a guy who has a mental problem. He is not fully retared, but inable to compete at the eployment market. His natural right is ofcourse still the right to live and to pursue his own happiness without the expense of others.

This guy is inable to find a job on the employment market and also is inable to start for himself.

How in a Capitalist society are his rights ensured. He enjoys to right to live, but cannot do so without going at the expense of others. third parties will be needed to ensure his single right.

Ofcourse this third party will need funding to do so, but this cannot be done by any govermental funds, because of course this will be an infringment on someone elses individuality by spending his funds in such an inappropriate way.

2nd question: Let us say we have a guy and he wants to be a farmer.

He wants to be a farmer because the prices in his country have gone up so much and the quality is so low that he feels it is time to find that opening in the market and cash in on it. This happened because the farmers somehow agreed upon prices and such. (Ayn Rand describes this proces as a natural occurence in such circumstances)

In his capitalist society all the land has been bought up by individual land owners and other firms. He is able to obtain funds to buy a patch of land, but all the land ran out.

How does a capitalist society deal with this. How is he still able to pursue his own happiness without going at the expense of others? Or did his luck just ran out?

third question: In a capitalist society is there a planning office? Is there a planning bureau wich decides when and where roads, houses and other infrastructure is built?

Who decides if my patch of land is next up for demolishment for the further increase of the infrastructure?

Who decides we need a better infrastructure?

Are my individual rights still safe when my patch of land/house is up for demoslishment because a road is to be built there? Or am I evicted by the use of “illegal force”?

fourth question: How can an individual who just started up his factory compete with the big business who have much lower expenses, because they have been running for years and have lower costs for various reasons?

How is that individual able to pursue his happiness without the expense of others?

I can at this point only reason that a mixed society must be the answer. I will explain.

Ayn Rand was possibly mistaken in the first place by stating that “the only inherent right men have is the right to live”. There is no such thing as the right to live. In animal societies where the population reaches it’s saturation point the new youngs are cannibalized for the greater good.

From origin human kind is tribal, altruistic and utilitarian.

If a men had the inherent right to live then it would have been able to sustain it’s own life from the start. How many years is an infant dependable by the whims of it’s parents. How many years must the society(the family) sacrifice it’s own individual aquired goods to an infant in order to raise it? How many altruistic acts to we suffer before we can act and function alone in society?

The tribal essence of which men depend resonates through our daily life. Consider how many altruistic acts are performed each day on a global scale in order to make the tribe survive another day.

I wonder how altruistic society will become when faced with immenent destruction by a foreign force.

It is without a doubt that human kind has been able to get to the point we are today by Tribalism. consider how many contintents would have been colonized if it weren’t for tribalism?

Now, as you can clearly read I’m not a pure capitalist nor a strong suporter of liberalism, but I do see a lot of pro’s in capitalism. I concur Ayn Rand views on a alot of free market aspects and the fact that individuality is very important.

I eagerly await the reponses to further enlighten my views.

2
  1. It depends on the level of retardation involved. People who are mildly retarded can find gainful employment, and in a capitalist society there is a need for jobs which require relatively little mental effort. Unless the person in question is dangerous, or suffers from an inability to cope in public, there are ways in which he can survive. Sure, he may need the help of a third party to be responsible with money and maintain healthy living standards, but that third party could be a family member, or even a non-profit organization which manages those who cannot make it on their own.

Thus, there is no need for government-funded assistance for the mentally challenged. There are more effective private means available.

  1. There are two options for the aspiring farmer who has no land (of course, assuming that there isn’t any available, which is highly unlikely). He could go to work for an existing farmer, using his skills and experience to increase the profitability and yield of his employer. This benefits them both, and is a perfectly rational option. The second would be to develop alternative farming methods, where fertile land isn’t available. This is the motivation behind hydroponic farming, which (in principle) one could achieve in most environments.

  2. Capitalism opposes “central planning”, primarily because of the issue you mentioned - being evicted from your land in favor of a more “efficient” use. In a centrally planned economy (or where eminent domain is practiced), you’d be evicted by force. In a capitalist society, those that want your land will offer to purchase it from you, and you can negotiate your price. If you do not yield, you are protected by the government from any attempt to force you off your land, or cheat you out of it.

  3. Hard work, perseverance, and differentiation. I have some knowledge of this, because I sell a line of music instruments that are expensive to produce and sell at higher prices than others like them. How we compete is to offer a product that fills needs not supplied by the “Big 3” companies in my market. As consumers become aware of the specific benefits our products offer, they purchase them, other musicians see them used and purchase them, and consequently the line has grown from obscurity to becoming a serious contender in 10 years. Perhaps one day, we’ll be one of the “Big 4”, but it’s better for us to compete in the free market to get there, than for someone else to force the other 3 to let us in.

There are many ways a small manufacturer can compete, but he won’t be able to compete by offering the same thing at the same price. For example, SKU Mart’s widgets are cheap - but disposable; Elite Co.'s widgets are more expensive, but are better quality, and may even be customized for specific uses.

The only way I can respond to your last comments is to say: keep reading Ayn Rand, and if need be, post specific questions on this forum. Your final comments are a mixture of broad concepts and specific applications, and cannot be adequately answered without a lot of background.

All I can say is this: “tribalism” as you call it may have been a “necessary” step in the evolution of societies, but no form of collectivism can be sustained without abrogating the rights of others. We know this in our modern world, and the time to abandon collectivism is long past. And we do have a right to life, every one of us.

If you abdicate your right to live, so be it - just don’t complain when you’re fired because a bureaucrat wants to fill your position with a retarded person, or if a “central planner” decides you have to move, or that you’re not allowed to be a farmer, or compete in any way with those that the corrupt planners protect.

3

Alright, I had some questions and comments that I came up with during your reply. One of the most urgent questions I had is written at the bottom. If you choose to reply at nothing then at least answer the last question I had at the bottom of this post.

Thus, there is no need for government-funded assistance for the mentally challenged. There are more effective private means available.

So, conclusion would be then that there is no sure way to protect those individuals rights, am I correct? It all depends on wheter a non-profit org is available there or wheter the retarded person allows himself to be helped? Even more, it is up to 3rd parties who have no obligation whatsoever to help to actually come forth and help him.

The essential point I see here is that it all comes down to altruistic behavior.

I’ve read alot about certain important organs being dependent on donations in order to exist. This meaning that there could be limited funds available though those means and that organisations would turn out to be Utilitarian and that altruism offers the existing right to those organisations.

  1. There are two options for the aspiring farmer who has no land (of course, assuming that there isn’t any available, which is highly unlikely).

At some point in time this may be the case. Especially in smaller countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, etc

The second would be to develop alternative farming methods, where fertile land isn’t available. This is the motivation behind hydroponic farming, which (in principle) one could achieve in most environments.

Technology costs money. And more often than not technology is kept in the freezer untill it is really needed or when it can be exploited as much as possible. We have been kept back alot of years now because the big companies won’t “allow” the use of alternative fuels.

Also if you look at the electronics market and especially at the dvd market and such, this has been kept back for a long time untill the use of CD-R/rw and such didn’t suffice anymore. This being while all the time more advanced tech was readily available.

Thus my conclusion would be that although the individual’s uniqueness and perserverence and ingenuity would allow for him to uncover great advancements, also actually that individual has the sole right to “hold-back” the greater community with his quest for economic advancement, right?

  1. If you do not yield, you are protected by the government from any attempt to force you off your land, or cheat you out of it.

If you look at North-America during 1850 and such a lot of large companies made it impossible for land owners to get any yields from their lands by boycotting them and therefor “focring” them by economical embargo’s to give into pressure.

Also if a large land-owner would catogorically refuse to give up the land that cuts through the land by 100’s of square kilometeres than any infrastructural progress would be severly hampered, right?

Again I must repeat that i’m not merely trying to debunk or troll here. I’m sincerely trying to gain more insights into essential problems I encounter with applying capitalism.

One of the most urging question I came up with the other day was the following.

What if a large state(or multiple), say China(and russia, etc), would buy up large companies, land, etc in a capitalist state and utilise those extra resources to enrich their own society (aka USA United fruit in Cuba). Wouldn’t there be a point where all the countries in the world would own a piece of that capitalist state and the native people of that capitalist state own nothing? Thus living in a foreign colony?

(I believe this is also a fear the Iraq people have right now, they fear shell, esso and whatmore to take over the oil industry amongst other things)

4

So, conclusion would be then that there is no sure way to protect those individuals rights, am I correct?

No. Protection of individual rights and providing for a dependant (a child, the infirm, the aged, the retarded) are two different things. A proper government would make sure that these people are not abused or taken advantage of, but that’s what government’s job is.

Kindness and goodwill are not altruism. An altruist public policy would require by law (meaning, under threat of imprisonment) that dependants be taken care of at the expense of the wealthy. Giving to a private charity, helping out a relative, or even running an agency using private contributions are not “altruistic” behaviors. They are freely chosen, based on the values of those who provide for the less-than-capable among us.

Thus my conclusion would be that although the individual’s uniqueness and perserverence and ingenuity would allow for him to uncover great advancements, also actually that individual has the sole right to “hold-back” the greater community with his quest for economic advancement, right?

Wrong. Such a creator does not give away his achievement. He seeks to trade the product of his efforts for another value, mainly monetary profit. He’s not holding back others at all; in fact, he’s providing sometihng which adds to the productivity and enjoyment of others’ lives. He hasn’t taken anything away from anyone, and does not prevent competition … the only way that could happen is with a government monopoly.

Perhaps his invention inspires someone who thinks they could make it better, or cheaper, or more suited for a segment of the population that cannot afford the invention. So this second person becomes a competitor, more people become customers, but now all people benefit, as the two companies must constantly lower prices and offer more options to maintain their market share.

Sure, it takes money to begin competing with others. That’s where the venture capitalist comes in - a person who has accrued wealth, and seeks to diversify his wealth by investing in others. If he is a wise investor, and the applicant is innovative and honest, such a person can enter his chosen industry to compete.

Also if a large land-owner would catogorically refuse to give up the land that cuts through the land by 100’s of square kilometeres than any infrastructural progress would be severly hampered, right?

That’s where salesmanship comes in. You want to tear up my land to lay water pipes and electrical lines to a rural community where you’ve purchased a great deal of land. I don’t want my crops disturbed … without adequate compensation. By negotiating and thinking creatively, you could discover a way to get the job done in good time, reconstruct my fields, and cut me in on some discount water, sewer, and electrical services.

But if I don’t sell, I’m not actively taking anything away from you or the community you want to serve.

Am I denying you an opportunity? Perhaps, but until you can make it somehow profitable for me, I’m not selling my land or allowing you to dig a trench through my crops.

Wouldn’t there be a point where all the countries in the world would own a piece of that capitalist state and the native people of that capitalist state own nothing? Thus living in a foreign colony?

Only if the people in that state sell all their assets to foreign governments. If sold to private industries, then one living in the USA, but working for a German company, would still be a US citizen and be protected by her laws. I’m not too good with foreign policy, but I assume that - in principle - a nation of rational free-traders (which the USA isn’t completely … yet) would not tolerate a massive injection of investment funds from a foreign government that does not recognize individual rights.

Or, to put it another way, a moral industrialist would rather see his productions wither away, than profit from selling to an entity which acquired its wealth on slave labor and/or looting.

5

So, conclusion would be then that there is no sure way to protect those individuals rights, am I correct?

I think the prime issue you’re missing here is that a right to life is not a right to be alive. I think you’re taking it as “Every man has a right to be alive, and if he’s able to support himself he has to, otherwise we do it for them.”

6

So far you have been great in asnwering to my questions and I really appreciate it, though of course you wouldn’t have expected to win my heart immediately as is the case I must stay and scrutinize some issues wich you stated( /sigh one can never be pleased, can they)

No. Protection of individual rights and providing for a dependant (a child, the infirm, the aged, the retarded) are two different things. A proper government would make sure that these people are not abused or taken advantage of, but that’s what government’s job is.

agreed.

Giving to a private charity, helping out a relative, or even running an agency using private contributions are not “altruistic” behaviors. They are freely chosen, based on the values of those who provide for the less-than-capable among us.

I would argue that you would tax the society in order to provide for this. You aren’t stepping on anyone’s right, you are merely cashing in on the fact that everyone would agree that some people need goverment help if they wish to enjoy the same rights that everyone else has, right?

Just like you stated in your previous argument.

But who will supervise the overal quality of hospitals. Who will control wheter or not my doctor gives me a fair chance of survival. I can imagine that one will start dealing in human organs and in order to get those a smart businessman might find that his patients suddenly got less chance of survival in order to aquire his goods.

these are matters a goverment will find hard to check, since they are no authority on such subjects.

Wrong. Such a creator does not give away his achievement. He seeks to trade the product of his efforts for another value, mainly monetary profit.

Maybe the inventor is still earning loads of millions selling refined oil and wants his discovery to be known when there is no more oil in the world.

The thing i’m trying to say is that without goverment regulation on such matters one could very well opt never to reveal his discovery untill he or she feels like it. Of course a smart bussinessman would opt to get as much value for his achievement as possible, but then again it all depends on the agenda.

Perhaps his invention inspires someone who thinks they could make it better, or cheaper, or more suited for a segment of the population that cannot afford the invention. So this second person becomes a competitor, more people become customers, but now all people benefit, as the two companies must constantly lower prices and offer more options to maintain their market share.

Agreed. This is happening on an everyday base in the industries. We can see this at the computer industry.

I consider this a great merrit of the free market economy.

Sure, it takes money to begin competing with others. That’s where the venture capitalist comes in - a person who has accrued wealth, and seeks to diversify his wealth by investing in others. If he is a wise investor, and the applicant is innovative and honest, such a person can enter his chosen industry to compete.

Again, one would make himself vulnerable to the mercy of others. foregoing the objective greater good.

The owner of the large patches of land may very well be interested in someday laying the infrastructure himself, yet doesn’t have the funds yet. This could hold back the rural community for years.

I’m not saying this will happen, but it is all possible without having some sort of regulations allowing the capitalist state to bloom and prosper.

If a capitalist state wishes to stay at the top of it’s game it must be dynamic. This meaning that achieving this must mean some sort of utilitarianism. Goes for other govermental forms too of course.

Only if the people in that state sell all their assets to foreign governments. If sold to private industries, then one living in the USA, but working for a German company, would still be a US citizen and be protected by her laws.

Goes without saying.

I’m not too good with foreign policy, but I assume that - in principle - a nation of rational free-traders (which the USA isn’t completely … yet) would not tolerate a massive injection of investment funds from a foreign government that does not recognize individual rights.

Rational? Rationality is not something objectively decided. It’s not a majority vote, nor does it exist in a material sense on any given planet.

The economic “invasion” is a slow process that creeps in. In the beginning hard to spot, but when more than 50% of the society is owned by foreign investors it suddenyl becomes apparent. Hard to keep track of such figures since all companies interested in calculating this are private owned of course.

The goverment injecting massive funds could well be European countries. They cannot shut European countries out since it’s a massively important consumer for the US. Shutting is out with trade barriers would result both ways. This would also mean shutting down the free market internationally for the capitalist country at hand and thus severly damaging the individual rights of the businessman. That would immediatley end the laisez-faire capitalism in the country at hand.

The only way it could work is when the majority of the world or the whole world turns to capitalism.

Or, to put it another way, a moral industrialist would rather see his productions wither away, than profit from selling to an entity which acquired its wealth on slave labor and/or looting.

A moral industrialist?

The overall problem I see throughout this post is that alot of the initiatives comes from the individual. Such as the individual deciding wheter or not infrastructure will be allowed to a community or the individual allow foreign investors or not. These are all matters that are the most essential to any society.

A society that protects it’s individuals cannot allow such crucial matters to be decided at the whims of a person. There need be strict regulations concerning such matters. One could see private owned highways rising up thhrough the land charging absurd prices for anyone not working for their company or other contracts.

You cannot compete with a Highway owner. You cannot built a faster way to get from A to B, because highway owner X already has a road there.

As an illustration I would like to point to Cuba in the time of Batista(before 1950’s). The vast majority of the land was owned by United fruit company. this company being a US company exported all their goods directly to the US for sale there. Thus all profits comming from that company didn’t flow back into the Cuban community, leaving the cubans only with their low wages and the cuban goverment with the Taxes they got from the company. this ofcourse stood in ill comparision of what the country could have earned would it be under direct control of either the goverment or a cuban private companies who competed with their sugar.

Such countries with such open markets are vulnerable for monopolies as was the case in Cuba.

In other south-american countries the same was seen. Big mining cooperations owned and expolited the country, while there was no room to compete. Of course you cannot open mines just anywhere.

Even Ayn Rand reckognises the monopoly vulnerable position of such industries.

As I see it you’ll need central planning to make the society work.

I happen to be a sergeant of the armored infantry in the dutch royal army and in my profession you can very well see how important it is that a select group of people have a bigger overview. A group of men who can instantly see wheter or not my actions will damage another platoon or team.

The big stars at the top can see wheter or not I will need a bridge during my operations and will make sure I get that bridge in time at the proper place.

Imagine a society without people at the top planning needed infrastructure. We would litteraly cross bridges when we come to them, by then it is too late.

I’m very much for a liberal stand concerning politic-economic governing, but a society without a governing organ that keep the bigger overview seems pretty anarchist to me.

the general statements I’m making here is that a society needs certain regulations on a political-economic level that invades the individuals rights at some level.

This in order to keep the society dynamic and to ensure fair-play from businesses involved.

I think the prime issue you’re missing here is that a right to life is not a right to be alive. I think you’re taking it as “Every man has a right to be alive, and if he’s able to support himself he has to, otherwise we do it for them.”

Yes indeed. That is what Ayn Rand wrote. Every man has the right to life and the goverment is there to ensure that right is held up.

This also brings other resposiblities, namely the fact there can be circumstances where a person cannot get a life merely because of the fact that he doesn’t have the abilities to take care of himself.

If I misinterpreted Ayn Rand here please correct me, but I didn’t think capitalism took taken a severe darwinistic aproach to life.

Should it read then:“Every men has the inherent right to life and to pursue his own happiness without going at the expense of others if he is inherently physically and mentally able to do so”.

7

I would argue that you would tax the society in order to provide for this. You aren’t stepping on anyone’s right, you are merely cashing in on the fact that everyone would agree that some people need goverment help if they wish to enjoy the same rights that everyone else has, right?

Some would argue that, while we are taxed for such purposes, we should take advantage of it. I argue that we should not be taxed for the purpose of providing basic goods and services for others. There are a number of practical reasons why the government should not be involved in these enterprises; at its foundation though, the government must do so by appropriating citizen’s assets against their will to fund these programs. This is how the government steps on our rights. We have the right to work and keep the product of our labors … all of the product, not a portion of it. Involuntary coercion - no matter how “noble” the cause - is still a violation of rights, even if everyone agrees that it should be done.

Maybe the inventor is still earning loads of millions selling refined oil and wants his discovery to be known when there is no more oil in the world.

That’s his right. But it’s a gamble - what if someone else discovers a replacement energy source first?

This could hold back the rural community for years.

A “community” does not have a right to progress. It’s citizens have the right to improve their lives, which may result in a more modern community.

I’m not saying this will happen, but it is all possible without having some sort of regulations allowing the capitalist state to bloom and prosper.

A capitalist system is one where people deal with each other by trade, not by force. The only thing that could “hold a community back” would be government intervention and regulation, meaning the individuals within it were prohibited - by force - from acquiring the goods and services they desire.

A moral industrialist? The overall problem I see throughout this post is that a lot of the initiatives comes from the individual.

There are a load of assumptions you make - wealth equals corruption, selfishness (profit) is evil and always at the expense of others, people can’t be moral unless there’s some official oversight or regulation. The truth is that rational self-interest is the moral standard by which the capitalist profits, and by consequence, how his clients prosper.

When businessment are dishonest, they lose business, and expose themselves to civil suits even government intervention to prevent further violation of others’ rights. Stop thinking of Enron as the example for capitalist morality; they made bad investments, lied about lost money, and now they’re going down - rightfully so.

Reality suffers no contradictions, and capitalism suffers no dishonesty … unless concealed behind government bureacracy.

Rational? Rationality is not something objectively decided. It’s not a majority vote, nor does it exist in a material sense on any given planet.

Rationality is a person observing reality, and making appropriate decisions that do not contradict reality. Every situation presents its own set of variables that determine the rational plan of action, but it is objectively decided. Of course, our use of the term “objectively” is different.

I think you meant it as “no action can always be rational or irrational.” Actually, some can be … context and observace of reality determine the rest.

If I misinterpreted Ayn Rand here please correct me, but I didn’t think capitalism took taken a severe darwinistic aproach to life.

Should it read then:“Every men has the inherent right to life and to pursue his own happiness without going at the expense of others if he is inherently physically and mentally able to do so”.

How about reading it like this: Every man owns his life and his mind and the products of his efforts. He is free to act in accordance with his will, ability, and ambition, and the only limitations on his rights are the rights other men.

First, one needs to understand the nature of what a right really is, before you can decide what type of society can exist to protect those rights.

8

The ‘Right to life’ is emphatically _ not _ a 'Right to Lively _ hood _ .’

The right to life simply means that the individual has the one and only proper claim to the ends of which his mind and body are the means.

The protection of that right includes the unabridged recognition of this casual relationship between the ends of which the mind and body are the means.

In the case of the retarded person it is true that his means to survival (specifically his mind) is limited in comparison to the average person, but his right to life still includes the same relationship between his means (mind) and ends, however different it may be.

There is no baseline to which all are entitled, yes, even in terms of quality of life. The people who think that are, among ‘communist,’ the same people who wouldn’t mind choking the owner of Wal-Mart for having more than his ‘fair share.’

9

2nd question: Let us say we have a guy and he wants to be a farmer.

He wants to be a farmer because the prices in his country have gone up so much and the quality is so low that he feels it is time to find that opening in the market and cash in on it. This happened because the farmers somehow agreed upon prices and such. (Ayn Rand describes this proces as a natural occurence in such circumstances)

In his capitalist society all the land has been bought up by individual land owners and other firms. He is able to obtain funds to buy a patch of land, but all the land ran out.

How does a capitalist society deal with this. How is he still able to pursue his own happiness without going at the expense of others? Or did his luck just ran out?

Yes, his luck just run out. He should try something else.

You are confusing the RIGHT to pursue your happiness with the ABILITY to pursue your happiness. A capitalist society only gurantees the RIGHT, not the ability, to pursue happiness.

So - I could also ask you this question: A boy has a dream of becoming a great soccer player in a capitalist country. But one day he has an accident and loses both legs. How does a capitalist society deal with this? How is he still able to pursue his own happiness as a soccer star? Or did his luck just run out?

10

So - I could also ask you this question: A boy has a dream of becoming a great soccer player in a capitalist country. But one day he has an accident and loses both legs. How does a capitalist society deal with this? How is he still able to pursue his own happiness as a soccer star? Or did his luck just run out?

I alsmolst fell for your comparison, but it’s not the same.

Your comparision deals quite well with similar circumstances in a capitalist society. A great soccer player is able to play for a great soccer club, since he is very well able to compete on the labor market for such a function. Also is he able to start up his own soccer club. It’s not likely the soccer club business will become oversaturated, since the amount of very talented personell required to make a great soccer club is limited.

In this comparision specific trained personell compete with one another on the labor market.

My question was directly aimed at the agricultural sector. Starting up a soccer team or working for a soccer team is not the same as dealing with limited amounts of land and trying to start up your own farm. You cannot compete with land owners if you can’t aquire any.

Nor can you compete with mining companies, since the amounts of mines is strictly limited to the geographical situation in a given geographical area.

but I remember something that Ayn Rand wrote on this subject that seems very appropriate on this. I believe Ayn Rand describes that when a business that has natural limitations(such as mining) aquires a monopoly and utilises this to raise prices, lower wages, etc. Then the natural occurence will be that substitute materials will be used instead of the mined materials.

An example was ALCOA(aluminium) in Canada, which has a near monopolistic posistion in that branche. ALCOA is able to maintain this because prices, etc are all well within bounds.

11

Some would argue that, while we are taxed for such purposes, we should take advantage of it. I argue that we should not be taxed for the purpose of providing basic goods and services for others.

There are a number of practical reasons why the government should not be involved in these enterprises; at its foundation though, the government must do so by appropriating citizen’s assets against their will to fund these programs. This is how the government steps on our rights. We have the right to work and keep the product of our labors … all of the product, not a portion of it. Involuntary coercion - no matter how “noble” the cause - is still a violation of rights, even if everyone agrees that it should be done.

So you would argue that no deed of Utilitarianism, no matter how “noble” or no matter if 99.99%of the pop would feel it nescessary?

I’d say that doesn’t contribute to the overall hapiness if such things are not open for option in a given society.

It’s not a tribal dicision that is made, it’s a dicision made by single individuals who feel their rights are enhanched by such legislation.

I’d call it the Dynamics of politics in a given society. A condition a a given society could change dramatically for external reasons. The survivial of a given political-economic structure must lay in the fact that it adapts to the situation at hand.

That’s his right. But it’s a gamble - what if someone else discovers a replacement energy source first?

A “community” does not have a right to progress. It’s citizens have the right to improve their lives, which may result in a more modern community.

seems fair.

The only thing that could “hold a community back” would be government intervention and regulation,

I understand how regualtions could do this. According to Ayn Rand the recession of 1929 was a clear example of this. Yet a good and proper goverment would not have any reasons to hold a community back.

Yet the whims of the individual could.

There are a load of assumptions you make - wealth equals corruption, selfishness (profit) is evil and always at the expense of others, people can’t be moral unless there’s some official oversight or regulation.

This is not true. Evilness and goodness are very unclear defined subjects open to debate.

A individual, in my opinion, must be able to pursue his own happiness without being forced to do otherwise.

Yet one individual in his quest for his happiness could harm other individuals indirectly by merely believing he is on his own on this world and his own moral standars rule supreme over those of others.

A group of individuals with, more or less, the same moral standards and goals function as a tribe.

This combined group of individuals might very well find it morally correct if there is an organ with the sole task of ensuring that their morals are upheld and not damamged directly or indirectly by the actions of a single individual.

They even could decide that, over time, their morals will change and that the organ should upheld other morals now, for example going more and more capitalistic and less socialistic or the other way around.

Rationality is a person observing reality, and making appropriate decisions that do not contradict reality.

This is not true. There is no such thing as observing reality objectively. All obersavations are subjective. Throughout humanities existance reality has had very different forms.

Not so long ago we all believed the reality was that the earth was flat. We also we believed rationally and objectively that we are the middle of the universe and that everything revolves around us.

Reality is very much open for debate still and a majority vote does not decide reality .i.e. Facts do not exists outside our own minds. All facts are obersvations and thus not objective.

Does someone who is able to spot ghosts oberserve reality?

History is fiction agreed upon someone once said. Our reality are observations agreed upon and since all oberservations are subjective we can argue that reality itself is very subjective and in no way factual.

Where i’m going with this is that we ourselves create our own reality. We do this by majority vote of the individual co-functioning in something we named a tribe. Therefor I would argue that the majority of individuals should always be dominant is proclaiming the better morals in any given tribe.

How about reading it like this: Every man owns his life and his mind and the products of his efforts. He is free to act in accordance with his will, ability, and ambition, and the only limitations on his rights are the rights other men.

This right that Ayn Rand speaks of is in no way inherent. Like I stated before a individual does not have the right to life just mererly becuase the individual is born.

A tribe that has become oversatuared with individuals might very well decide that it is in the best interest of the majority of individuals(also decided by the majority of individuals) that the newly born individual should not have any life.

This could be decided because the birth of this individual might directly/indirecltly harm other individuals.

12

I’m going to bypass your four main questions in order to narrowly focus on one fundamental point that you made in your explaination:

How many years must the society(the family) sacrifice it’s own individual aquired goods to an infant in order to raise it?

The word that struck me is sacrifice. Sacrifice is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. In your statement, you imply that using one’s aquired goods for the raising, nuturing and caring of an infant is a lesser value than what one could use his aquired goods for in other ways. If one values a vacation higher than one would value a well-nourished, well-cared for infant, then it is indeed a sacrifice. However, a rational individual will see that the value in raising an infant from a helpless larva into a productive, self-sustaining, rational man (capable of ensuring the survival of his line of DNA) is a much higher value than a vacation, or any other means of disposal for his aquired goods.

Moreover, a parent who raises an infant into a productive, rational being actually gains value: pride and admiration, the two chief values which allow one to feel oneself worthy of existence, and that others exist who are worthy of one’s love.

I know all this is far from answering your questions on farming and what will be done with the handicapped and infirm in a purely capitalist society, but I believe it’s fundamental (when dealing with altruism, in particular) to use the word “sacrifice” only in it’s proper connotation.

13

I alsmolst fell for your comparison, but it’s not the same.

Your comparision deals quite well with similar circumstances in a capitalist society. A great soccer player is able to play for a great soccer club, since he is very well able to compete on the labor market for such a function. Also is he able to start up his own soccer club. It’s not likely the soccer club business will become oversaturated, since the amount of very talented personell required to make a great soccer club is limited.

In this comparision specific trained personell compete with one another on the labor market.

My question was directly aimed at the agricultural sector. Starting up a soccer team or working for a soccer team is not the same as dealing with limited amounts of land and trying to start up your own farm. You cannot compete with land owners if you can’t aquire any.

Nor can you compete with mining companies, since the amounts of mines is strictly limited to the geographical situation in a given geographical area.

Fuser, you are missing the point. And the point is that capitalist society does not guarantee your ABILITY to pursue your happiness, only your RIGHT. There are circumstances that might make it difficult or even IMPOSSIBLE for you to achieve your dream or your happiness, but it is no one’s duty or obligation to change these circumstances for you. The only role government has in this regard is to protect your right to pursue that happiness, even if it is an impossible pursuit.

So, it doesn’t matter whether the limiting factor is a natural resource (land) or your own misfortune - no one owes you anything.

A capitalist society is not one that is trying to MAKE people achieve their dreams or their happiness - NO. it is just one that is trying to protect their right to do so. (It just so happens that it is in such a society that people tend to achieve their dreams, but you should not confuse the two!)

When you understand this principle, you will see why most of your questions above are in fact wrong. You are creating what you consider to be complicated situations that some people might face on their way to achieving happiness in a capitalist society, and you want others on this forum to show how these problems would be solved by a capitalist society or government. The answer is that that is not what capitalist society is about: it is not about helping people achieve anything or about solving people’s problems. It is just about recognising (and protecting) people’s rights to that achievement, period. It is about protecting their right to life, as you rightly stated in the begining.

14

This is not true. There is no such thing as observing reality objectively. All obersavations are subjective.

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the ‘stolen concept’?

15

First of all thank you for replying to my questions I have in such a constructed manner.

I have been receiving some mails from people who are concerned that my reasons for comming here are not in line with this forum policy. So I will explain.

I haven’t come here to debunk the ideas of Objectivism, but I’ve sincerely come here to learn more about it.

I know I can be very controversial and hard-headed when faced with matters I can’t grasp or if it somehow conflicts with my current views.

Capitalism currently still conflicts with my current views, but that isn’t stopping me from learning more about it.

Through my questions and the answers I get on them from you and with reading more about it I find myself understanding Objectivism more and more.

As I said i’m currently well on my way to finishing Ayn Rand’s book and next on my list is another book I got as reading recommendation.

I happened to walk into a political debate the other day in my city hall(the Hague, Netherlands) and found myself talking with a liberal politician from a big political group here in the netherlands that is also currently represented in the current goverment.

He recommended a book called: In defense of global capitalism by Norquist.

I just ordered that book and it’s next on my reading list along with some work by Nietzsche.

So as it may seem that I’m trying to debunk issues or whatever i’m actually using my way to get more familiar with the subject. And yes I can critiscise some matters rigourlesly if I see conflicts.

I don’t believe this is a crime. Criticism should never be avoided. If noone ever criticsed anything we’d very well could still be living under the impression that the earth is flat.

I must run for now, I will try to respond to this thread later on the day.

16

I don’t believe this is a crime. Criticism should never be avoided. If noone ever criticsed anything we’d very well could still be living under the impression that the earth is flat.

That which constitutes a crime, and that which constitutes a violation of this forum’s rules are two different things. Your manner of learning does not give you license to violate the rules of this forum, not even under the guise of criticism. As long as you understand that and abide by those rules, there is an abundance of potential value for you in this place. But you received that message for a reason so don’t interpret its contents as being optional.

As to your comment about criticism, it is subject to context just like anything else. There are many instances in which criticism can and should rightfully be avoided. For example, once one has recognized a given criticism as being logically wrong, one needn’t consider it again (absent new knowledge) just because someone else wants to present the same argument as criticism. Second, this forum is but one source out of many by which many of the members learn about Objectivism. Some of those places offer a medium for criticism while others seek refuge from outside distractions. Each place has its own function and purpose. While here, you are in one of the more “refuge” oriented places. But nobody here is encouraged, to my knowledge, to make this forum their only source for learning Objectivism; quite the contrary actually.

17

The word that struck me is sacrifice. Sacrifice is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. In your statement, you imply that using one’s aquired goods for the raising, nuturing and caring of an infant is a lesser value than what one could use his aquired goods for in other ways. If one values a vacation higher than one would value a well-nourished, well-cared for infant, then it is indeed a sacrifice. However, a rational individual will see that the value in raising an infant from a helpless larva into a productive, self-sustaining, rational man (capable of ensuring the survival of his line of DNA) is a much higher value than a vacation, or any other means of disposal for his aquired goods.

Of course and I agree with you entirely. But how many times can we see today that people are not taking care of their precious infants.

Taking care of your infant and really taking care of your infant are two different things. My parents could have raised me by walking on that precious line of what is tolerated and what is not tolerated when raising a child. I’m lucky they chose to adhere to the laws concerning raising childres and a bit extra to make my life happier. But I can very well understand those those laws and regulations, in a capitalist, society will diminish more so the goverment will have much less to say about this. This in order not to infringe an individuals rights(wich are rightfully very important).

I could very well imagine that the lower ends of the population would not be able to give their children the same life as other children, perhaps not even able to sent them to school (which would be private schools in a capitalist society of course).

I realise there is no right to schooling and the right to education. I also realise that the society would have great importance in raising it’s next generation work force. I can also very well imagine companies donating funds to raise the next generation work force. My only problem with this would be that the curriculum would/could be very narrow and the amount of schooling spaces would be somewhat limited.

Do you find my concerns rational and logical or do you believe I schould look at this matter in a different perspective?

Moreover, a parent who raises an infant into a productive, rational being actually gains value: pride and admiration, the two chief values which allow one to feel oneself worthy of existence, and that others exist who are worthy of one’s love.

Yes of course. I refere to my previous statement on this issue.

I know all this is far from answering your questions on farming and what will be done with the handicapped and infirm in a purely capitalist society, but I believe it’s fundamental (when dealing with altruism, in particular) to use the word “sacrifice” only in it’s proper connotation.

Yes thank you. My main questions/arguments have been answered very satisfactory in this thread.

But some issues I still find difficult to deal with as you say so yourself. The position handicapped, infants and other less fortunates is still not very clear to me. I haven’t been able to find much information about this either sadly.

I could rationalize that those would indeed be dependent on charity organisations, relatives, aquintances.

Or I could rationalize that those individuals are unable to take care of themselves and therefor the goverment has a function in this. The definition of the goverments fucntion relating this is yet undifined of course.

18

The position handicapped, infants and other less fortunates is still not very clear to me. I haven’t been able to find much information about this either sadly.

It may be helpful if you define “less fortunates”. With respect to infants, there is a whole thread of various perspectives on that here.

However, the general priniciple is, one person’s need does not impose an unchosen obligation on another person. The other thing to remember is that while human beings have a right to life, they do not have a right to have there life provided for them. It would not be a proper role of government to use tax money to provide for the lives of “the needy”. Charity should be left to those private parties who find value in providing such assistance. One persons ability to make money does not give the government the right to take a portion of it from him by force and give it to someone else.